Skip to main content

In the Boston Review, an Atlantic Yards-centric review of The Battle for Gotham

The Battle for Gotham: New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, by Roberta Brandes Gratz, is the subject of a thoughtful 2900-word review in the Boston Review, Clear and Hold, by Brooklyn resident and Princeton grad student Casey Walker.

Atlantic Yards gets a significant cameo in the book's Conclusion (its tenth chapter), but it is the focus of Walker's review, which states:
Atlantic Yards is a familiar urban story: surrounding neighborhoods are braced for upheaval; architects have come and gone; redesigns have been announced, lambasted, tweaked, disowned; lawsuits multiply like kudzu; millions of dollars are all but blowing through the air; and the likely date of actual completion is anyone’s guess (Forest City Ratner, the developer, contends the Barclays Center will be finished by 2011, but the Web site does not give a timetable for the rest of the project).
Actually, they're saying 2012, now.

Questions that never got answered

Walker, who wisely recognizes the merits of “infill” development in the railyard, sets out the issues that arose:
The question, of course, is what form that development should take. Should new additions be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods? Should they be done piecemeal or all at once? Do we need several architects or is one sufficient? How much attention should the city and borough pay to the interests of local boards? Should new construction be limited to the rail yards, or should the development be bigger?

To me, these questions always have been theoretical. It was never hard to see who would prevail. Despite the lawsuits, protests, and holdouts spearheaded by the major opposition group—Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn—Forest City was simply too rich and too shrewd, and its political support was too deep. Its large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. Atlantic Yards will be a Robert Moses throwback: a massive project, done all at once, unsparing of existing structures, with a skyline soaring above the rooftops of the three and four story brownstone buildings that make up much of the surrounding neighborhoods.
If it is done all at once, I and some others will be very surprised, given the gentle deadlines in the Development Agreement.

The unequal playing field

Read on for thoughts of the city as a delicate organism, Walker's acknowledgment that some big projects (like Rockefeller Center) did work, and Gratz's conclusion, via Walker, that "the continuing influence of Robert Moses is a sign that the battle for a Jacobsian city is continuous, and always fought on an unequal playing field."

Comments

  1. What Walker writes is disturbing (but perhaps true)., especially as it is just thrown out there like common knowledge. He writes:

    "To me, these questions always have been theoretical. It was never hard to see who would prevail. Despite the lawsuits, protests, and holdouts spearheaded by the major opposition group—Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn—Forest City was simply too rich and too shrewd, and its political support was too deep. Its large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. "

    Is he suggesting that Ratner being too shrewd and rich means that courts would never rule against him? Maybe. But what about the law.

    Where he is just wrong is that at least according to Ratner himself, the project was teetering on the brink in 2008. Atlantic Yards, a David v. Goliath fight if ever there was one, DID meet a serious challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Casey Walker wrote:

    The question, of course, is what form that development should take. Should new additions be in scale with the surrounding neighborhoods? Should they be done piecemeal or all at once? Do we need several architects or is one sufficient? How much attention should the city and borough pay to the interests of local boards? Should new construction be limited to the rail yards, or should the development be bigger?

    . . . [Forrest City's] large-scale approach to development would not meet any serious challenges. Atlantic Yards will be a Robert Moses throwback: a massive project, done all at once, unsparing of existing structures, with a skyline soaring above the rooftops of the three and four story brownstone buildings that make up much of the surrounding neighborhoods.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I've only quickly skimmed the Walker essay, but here is what jumps out at me.

    It seems to me that Walker is confusing the issues here (as have many others too). Atlantic Yards is [1] a Robert Moses-type development and [2] a bad development scheme overall not because it is big, etc. (Rockefeller Center, for example, was a big development and was neither of these things.)

    Rather, Atlantic Yards is [1] a Robert Moses-type development and [2] a bad development scheme overall because it is just a poorly thought out scheme in the first place, and because it involves a high level of government assistance, especially with regards to the government's power of eminent domain.

    It also seems to me that the high level of government involvement in the project helps "insulate" it from its problems as a development scheme.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 12:30 a.m.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel Goldstein is right that even Ratner admits the project was in trouble when the economic downturn hit. However, the political (and business) establishment was always behind the project, so it was hard to maintain a political challenge. In other words, the win--should it have come--would have been because lawsuits delayed Atlantic Yards long enough for the downturn, but not in the political arena, or the legal arena. (One major case still lingers.)

    Benjamin Hemric is right in pointing out the difference between Atlantic Yards and Rockefeller Center. AY is a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, one with far more surface process but still no significant accountability. A development project of considerable size--if not AY dimensions--could be built on the railyard and even (parts of) adjacent blocks, but to win approval from many urbanists it would have to have been done differently.

    Not only are the issues government assistance/involvement, eminent domain, and a one-developer scheme. The fundamental question is the balance of power between the developer and the agencies representing the public.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Norman, of course you are correct. It was a politically fixed deal, and that never changed.

    But my comment was more about the judiciary. If it was politically fixed (and no doubt it was), and if Ratner is powerful, has a lot of money and doles out a lot of it, should that—does that—impact the courts.

    My fear is that it does. And it shouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Norman Oder wrote:

    AY is a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, one with far more surface process but still no significant accountability.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    While I agree that Atlantic Yards is indeed a Robert Moses-type development for our current era, I don't believe it is because Atlantic Yards has involved no significant accountability. (In other words, I don't believe that one of the factors making it a Robert-Moses-type development is the fact that there's been little true community input, etc.) Rockefeller Center, for example, is not a Robert Moses-type development, and it didn't have any significant community input either. So I don't think the absence of community input is really a legitimate criteria for a project's "Robert Moses-ness."

    Rather I think the real criteria is whether the building of a project involves government power (especially government power used in an abusive way).

    - - - - - - -

    Norman Oder wrote:

    A development project of considerable size -- if not AY dimensions -- could be built on the railyard and even (parts of) adjacent blocks, but to win approval from many urbanists it would have to have been done differently.

    The fundamental question is the balance of power between the developer and the agencies representing the public.


    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    If what is being meant here is that a hallmark of good urbanism is a responsiveness to community input, I don't think this is true -- and again, Rockefeller Center is a counter example.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wednesday, 7/28/2010, 9:55 p.m.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Um, how different is "(especially government power used in an abusive way)" from "no significant accountability"?

    Rockefeller Center may be a counter-example of good urbanism without community input, but it's a different project at a different time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Norman Oder wrote:

    . . . how different is "(especially government power used in an abusive way)" from "no significant accountability"?

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I thought that by "no significant accountability" it was meant that Atlantic Yards wasn't subject to meaningful community reviews by the local community board, etc. This is, of course, very different from using government powers for eminent domain abuse, etc.

    - - - - - -

    Norman Oder wrote:

    Rockefeller Center may be a counter-example of good urbanism without community input, but it's a different project at a different time.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I think the question to be addressed here is why are the differences that are being mentioned supposedly relevant / significant to the issue at hand? For example, why is community oversight supposedly necessary for good urbanism now when it wasn't then?

    Would community oversight have made Rockefeller Center better urbanistically or worse? Judging from what I've read about the history of Rockefeller Center, it seems to me that community involvement would likely have made Rockefeller Center much less successful urbanistically -- and probably even jeopardized its successful construction in the first place. ("Too many cooks spoil the broth.") Why is this supposedly different today? Why, and how, have the dynamics supposedly changed?

    Also, it seems to me that it's important not to overlook the way heavy government involvement insulates projects such as Atlantic Yards from their mistakes -- and, indeed, is what makes such projects supposedly "feasible" in the first place. Without heavy government involvement there is no Atlantic Yards in its (various) present form(s).

    The same is not true with regard to truly private developments (that aren't insulated from potential problems by heavy government involvement), like Rockefeller Center.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Wed., July 28, 2010, 11:49 p.m.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barclays Center/Levy Restaurants hit with suit charging discrimination on disability, race; supervisors said to use vicious slurs, pursue retaliation

The Daily News has an article today, Barclays Center hit with $5M suit claiming discrimination against disabled, while the New York Post headlined its article Barclays Center sued over taunting disabled employees.

While that's part of the lawsuit, more prominent are claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, with black employees claiming repeated abuse by white supervisors, preferential treatment toward Hispanic colleagues, and retaliation in response to complaints.

Two individual supervisors, for example, are charged with  referring to black employees as “black motherfucker,” “dumb black bitch,” “black monkey,” “piece of shit” and “nigger.”

Two have referred to an employee blind in one eye as “cyclops,” and “the one-eyed guy,” and an employee with a nose disorder as “the nose guy.”

There's been no official response yet though arena spokesman Barry Baum told the Daily News they, but take “allegations of this kind very seriously” and have "a zero tolerance policy for…

Behind the "empty railyards": 40 years of ATURA, Baruch's plan, and the city's diffidence

To supporters of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, it's a long-awaited plan for long-overlooked land. "The Atlantic Yards area has been available for any developer in America for over 100 years,” declared Borough President Marty Markowitz at a 5/26/05 City Council hearing.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, mused on 11/15/05 to WNYC's Brian Lehrer, “Isn’t it interesting that these railyards have sat for decades and decades and decades, and no one has done a thing about them.” Forest City Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco, in a 12/19/04 New York Times article ("In a War of Words, One Has the Power to Wound") described the railyards as "an empty scar dividing the community."

But why exactly has the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard never been developed? Do public officials have some responsibility?

At a hearing yesterday of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, Kate Suisma…

Barclays Center event June 11 to protest plans to expand Israeli draft; questions about logistics

At right is a photo of a poster spotted in Hasidic Williamsburg right. Clearly there's an event scheduled at the Barclays Center aimed at the Haredi Jewish community (strict Orthodox Jews who reject secular culture), but the lack of English text makes it cryptic.

The website Matzav.com explains, Protest Against Israeli Draft of Bnei Yeshiva Rescheduled for Barclays Center:
A large asifa to protest the drafting of bnei yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel into the Israeli army that had been set to take place this month will instead be held on Sunday, 17 Sivan/June 11, at the Barclays Center in Downtown Brooklyn, NY. So attendees at a big gathering will protest an apparent change of policy that will make it much more difficult for traditional Orthodox Jewish students--both Hasidic (who follow a rebbe) and non-Hasidic (who don't)--to get deferments from the draft. Comments on the Yeshiva World website explain some of the debate.

The logistical questions

What's unclear is how large the ev…

Atlanta's Atlantic Yards moves ahead

First mentioned in April, the Atlantic Yards project in Atlanta is moving ahead--and has the potential to nudge Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn further down in Google searches.

According to a 5/30/17 press release, Hines and Invesco Real Estate Announce T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards:
Hines, the international real estate firm, and Invesco Real Estate, a global real estate investment manager, today announced a joint venture on behalf of one of Invesco Real Estate’s institutional clients to develop two progressive office projects in Atlanta totalling 700,000 square feet. T3 West Midtown will be a 200,000-square-foot heavy timber office development and Atlantic Yards will consist of 500,000 square feet of progressive office space in two buildings. Both projects are located on sites within Atlantic Station in the flourishing Midtown submarket.
Hines will work with Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture (HPA) as the design architect for both T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards. DLR Group will be t…

Not quite the pattern: Greenland selling development sites, not completed condos

Real Estate Weekly, reporting on trends in Chinese investment in New York City, on 11/18/15 quoted Jim Costello, a senior vice president at research firm Real Capital Analytics:
“They’re typically building high-end condos, build it and sell it. Capital return is in a few years. That’s something that is ingrained in the companies that have been coming here because that’s how they’ve grown in the last 35 years. It’s always been a development game for them. So they’re just repeating their business model here,” he said. When I read that last November, I didn't think it necessarily applied to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, now 70% owned (outside of the Barclays Center and B2 modular apartment tower), by the Greenland Group, owned significantly by the Shanghai government.
A majority of the buildings will be rentals, some 100% market, some 100% affordable, and several--the last several built--are supposed to be 50% market/50% subsidized. (See tentative timetable below.)

Selling development …

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

"There is no alternative": DM Glen on de Blasio's affordable housing strategy

As I've written, Mayor Bill de Blasio sure knows how to steer and spin coverage of his affordable housing initiatives.

Indeed, his latest announcement, claiming significant progress, came with a pre-press release op-ed in the New York Daily News and then a friendly photo-op press conference with an understandably grateful--and very lucky--winner of an affordable housing lottery.

To me, though, the most significant quote came from Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, who, as the Wall Street Journal reported:
said public housing had been “starved” of federal support for years now, leaving the city with fewer ways of creating affordable housing. “Are we relying too heavily on the private sector?” she said. “There is no alternative.” Though Glen was using what she surely sees as a common-sense phrase, it recalls the slogan of a politician with whom I doubt de Blasio identifies: former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative who believed in free markets.

It suggests the limits to …